clear and obvious error in Illinois

2025Under the plain error rule, a reviewing court can consider an unpreserved error when (1) a clear and obvious error occurred and “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error” or (2) “that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 .

2024Under the plain-error doctrine, forfeiture can be excused when “a clear and obvious error occurred” and either (1) “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error -3- No. 1-22-1951 alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error” or (2) the error is “so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).

2026Jan. 1, 1967)), under which “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court,” and we construe them “identically.” People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 49 (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 175 ); see also People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010); People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296-97 (2005). 25 No. 1-23-2093 ¶ 69 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error when there was a clear and obvious error and either (1) the evidence was so closely balanced that the err

2025“Once it is determined that the error affected a substantial right, the reviewing court may then proceed in determining whether the error is excusable ***.” Id. (citing People v. Heron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 185 (2005)). ¶ 31 “The first step in a plain-error analysis is to determine whether a clear and obvious error occurred. [Citation.] If a clear and obvious error occurred, we then consider whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied.” (Emphases added.) People v. Henderson, 2017 IL App (3d) 150550, ¶ 37 .

2025Alternatively, the defendant requests that we review the issue under the second prong plain-error review. ¶ 23 Under the plain-error doctrine in the sentencing context, a reviewing court may consider forfeited claims where a clear and obvious error occurred and either: “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant 8 a fair sentencing hearing.” Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 .

2025As defense counsel did not properly preserve this issue, the defendant requests that we review the issue under both prongs of the plain-error doctrine. ¶ 56 Under the plain-error doctrine in the sentencing context, a reviewing court may consider forfeited claims where a clear and obvious error occurred and either: “(1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2) the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.” People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010).

2026People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 325 (2010) (“[A] reviewing court does not lack authority to address unbriefed issues and may do so in the appropriate case, i.e., when a clear and obvious error exists in the trial court proceedings.”).

2025People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 325 (2010) (“[A] reviewing court does not lack authority to address unbriefed issues and may do so in the appropriate case, i.e., when a clear and obvious error exists in the trial court proceedings.”).

2023On review, a court may address unpreserved error “when a clear and obvious error occurs and (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 65 (2008).

2023Under the plain error doctrine, we may review unpreserved error when “a clear and obvious error occurs and: (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 65 (2008).

2026Jan. 1, 1967)), under which “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court,” and we construe them “identically.” People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 49 (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 175 ); see also People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010); People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296-97 (2005). 25 No. 1-23-2093 ¶ 69 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error when there was a clear and obvious error and either (1) the evidence was so closely balanced that the err

2020People v. Cavazos, 2015 IL App (2d) 120171, ¶ 71 . ¶ 60 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an error not properly preserved if there was a clear and obvious error and either (1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the jury may have convicted based on the error or (2) the error “is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010).

2025People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 35 Defendant contends the trial court committed a clear and obvious error in failing to rule on his midtrial motion for a directed verdict before proceeding to the defense’s case.

2024Defendant can invoke the plain-error doctrine if he makes one of two showings: “(1) a clear and obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 .

2022Under the plain-error rule, we “will review unpreserved error when a clear and obvious error occurs and: (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) [the] error is so serious that it affected the fairness of -2- 2022 IL App (2d) 200535 the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. (citing People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007), and People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 (2000)). ¶8 The right to a jury trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends.

2010People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 [, 870 N.E.2d 403, 410-11 ] (2007); People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 [, 743 N.E.2d 521 , - 15 - 539] (2000)." "'Under both prongs of the plain-error doctrine, the burden of persuasion remains with defendant.'" People v. Wishard, 396 Ill.

2025Under such doctrine, we may excuse defendant’s procedural default when a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the 56 error,” or (2) the “error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 . “ ‘[I]f in the end, the error is found not to rise to the level

2015Under either prong, the defendant has the burden of persuasion, and if he fails to satisfy this burden, the " 'procedural default must be honored.' " Walker, 232 Ill. 2d at 124 (quoting People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17 (1995)). ¶ 53 We first consider whether an error occurred in this case, namely, whether a clear and obvious error resulted when the court convicted defendant of the uncharged offense of home invasion while armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm.

2025Thus, any error could not have been cured by defense counsel’s restatement of the fourth Zehr principle during voir dire or by the posttrial instruction given to the jury. ¶ 58 Though defendant argues that the use of the word “failure” had negative and prejudicial connotations, we need not address whether defendant was prejudiced in this exact way. - 20 - The core of first-prong-plain-error jurisprudence dictates that “whether a Rule 431(b) violation is trivial or de minimis—and we have repeatedly stated that it is neither—is simply the wrong inquiry,” as “prejudice rests not upon the seriousn

2025Under such doctrine, we may excuse defendant’s procedural default when a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) “the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the 56 error,” or (2) the “error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48 . “ ‘[I]f in the end, the error is found not to rise to the level

2009Pursuant to the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider unpreserved error where: "'(1) a clear and obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear - 3 - or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.'" People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 697 (200

2009Pursuant to the plain-error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider unpreserved error where: "'(1) a clear and obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear - 3 - or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.'" People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 697 (200

2022People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 32 (a trial court’s failure to ask potential jurors about the fourth principle was clear error). ¶ 56 Although we find a clear and obvious error occurred, we cannot find plain error where defendant has failed to carry his burden to show that the evidence was closely balanced.

2020Id. ¶ 50 Having determined that a clear and obvious error occurred at trial, we now consider whether the evidence in this case is closely balanced.

2025Rather, the defendant must show that the violation was a clear and obvious error, which “alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant.” Id. ¶ 77 In the present matter, the circuit court read all four of the Rule 431(b) principles to the jury, and then asked them individually, “[D]o you understand and accept those principles of law?” Each juror answered in the affirmative on all points.

2023See People v. Birge, 2021 IL 125644, ¶ 24 (stating that a trial court’s violation of Rule 431(b) “is not a second-prong, structural error that requires automatic reversal under a plain-error analysis”). ¶ 40 Under the plain-error doctrine, forfeited errors may be reviewed when a clear and obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence was closely balanced such that “the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error,” or (2) the error was “so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of th

2020To the contrary, we noticed an error on the face of the order dated November 1, 2018, in which the circuit court - 10 - stayed the IWCC proceedings based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. “ ‘[A] reviewing court does not lack authority to address unbriefed issues and may do so *** when a clear and obvious error exists in the trial court proceedings.’ ” Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Founders Insurance Co., 404 Ill.

2019To the contrary, we noticed an error on the face of the order dated November 1, 2018, in which the circuit court stayed the IWCC proceedings based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. “ ‘[A] reviewing court does not lack authority to address unbriefed issues and may do so *** when a clear and obvious error exists in the trial court proceedings.’ ” Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Founders Insurance Co., 404 Ill.

2026Jan. 1, 1967)), under which “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court,” and we construe them “identically.” People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 49 (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 175 ); see also People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010); People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296-97 (2005). 25 No. 1-23-2093 ¶ 69 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error when there was a clear and obvious error and either (1) the evidence was so closely balanced that the err

2024See Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 50 .

2026Id. ¶ 22 Rule 431(b) requires the circuit court to ask whether prospective jurors understand and accept four essential principles of criminal law derived from People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477 (1984); Ill.

2020We agree with the State. -9- ¶ 62 The Illinois Supreme Court adopted Rule 431(b) to ensure compliance with the requirements of People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 476 , 469 N.E.2d 1062, 1063-64 (1984).

2026Jan. 1, 1967)), under which “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court,” and we construe them “identically.” People v. Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 49 (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 175 ); see also People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010); People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296-97 (2005). 25 No. 1-23-2093 ¶ 69 Under the plain error doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error when there was a clear and obvious error and either (1) the evidence was so closely balanced that the err

2024People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296-97 (2005). ¶ 78 Under the plain error doctrine, we may consider an unpreserved error when there was a clear and obvious error and either (1) the evidence was so closely balanced that the error itself threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the gravity of the error, or (2) the error was so serious that it resulted in an unfair trial to the defendant and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.

2018The first inquiry before determining whether there was a plain error is to determine whether there was a clear and obvious error. *234 *817 People v. Eppinger , 2013 IL 114121 , ¶ 19, 368 Ill.Dec. 529 , 984 N.E.2d 475 .

2014Plain error review applies in two circumstances: (i) when “a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error”; or (ii) when “a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Id. ¶ 48 The first step involves determining whether a clear and obvious error occurred.

2025See Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 43 . ¶ 65 Generally, a single factor may not be used both as an element of the crime and as an aggravating factor justifying the imposition of a harsher sentence.

2025Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 44 .

2020Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d at 190 (citing People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 593 (2008)). ¶ 48 Both parties agree it was a clear and obvious error to send the case to the jury without the section 115-10(c) instruction.

2009The plain-error doctrine is a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of procedural default (Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d at 593 ) and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when one of two conditions is met: “(1) a clear and obvious error occurs and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurs and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial -

2026People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551, 564-65 (2007); Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 88 (“Without reversible error, there can be no plain error.”). ¶ 64 The parties dispute the standard of review for the underlying error.

2025Id.